No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Sand erosion modeling in generic compressor rig testing
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 August 2022
Abstract
Based on erosion coupon tests, a sand erosion model for 17-4PH steel was developed. The developed erosion model was validated against the results of compressor erosion tests from a generic rig and from other researchers. A high-fidelity computational fluid dynamics (CFD) model of the test rig was built, a user-defined function was developed to implement the erosion model into the ANSYS CFD software, and the turbulent, two-phase flow-field in multiple reference frames was solved. The simulation results are consistent with the test results from the compressor rig and with experimental findings from other researchers. Specifically, the sand erosion blunts the leading edge, sharpens the trailing edge and increases pressure-surface roughness. The comparisons between the experimental observations and numerical results as well as a quantitative comparison with three other sand erosion models indicate that the developed sand erosion model is adequate for erosion prediction of engine components made of 17-4PH steel.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1302: The 25th ISABE Conference Special Issue – Part II , August 2022 , pp. 1303 - 1323
- Copyright
- © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society
References
Grant, G. and Tabakoff, W. Erosion prediction in turbomachinery resulting from environmental particles, J Aircr, 1975, 12, (5), pp 471–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balan, C. and Tabakoff, W. Axial compressor performance deterioration, AIAA Paper 84-1208, 1984.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sugano, H., Yamaguchi, N. and Taguchi, S. A study on the ash erosion of axial induced draft fans of coal-fired boilers, TR, Vol. 19, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Tokyo, Japan, February 1982.Google Scholar
Richardson, J.H., Sallee, G.P. and Smakula, F.K. Causes of high-pressure compressor deterioration in service, AIAA Paper 79-1234, 1979.Google Scholar
Hamed, A., Tabakoff, W. and Wenglarz, R. Erosion and deposition in turbomachinery, J Propul Power, 2006, 22, (2).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neilson, J.H. and Gilchrist, A. Erosion by a Stream of Solid Particles, Wear, 11, 1968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wu, X. and Yang, Q. Durability & risk effects tool for adverse environmental erosion phase I, LTR-SMM-2020-0050, 2020.Google Scholar
Leithead, S. A durability test rig and methodology for erosion-resistant blade coatings in turbomachinery, M.S. thesis, Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, ON, Canada, 2013.Google Scholar
Massouh, R. Test rig for durability testing of gas turbine blade erosion coatings, Royal Military College of Canada, Master of Engineering (Mechanical Engineering) Project Report, 2012.Google Scholar
Robinson, R.G. and Delano, J.B. An investigation of the drag of windshields in the 8-foot high-speed wind tunnel, National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Special Report Number 114, pp 6, 1939.Google Scholar
Cowherd, C. Sandblaster 2 Support of See-Through Technologies for Particulate Brownout, Midwest Research Institute, 110565.1.005, Kansas City, MO USA, 2007.Google Scholar
Barton, Technical Data and Physical Characteristics for Alluvial Garnet Abrasives, 2012. http://www.barton.com/documents/Tech%20Data%20Alluvial%20Garnet_Barton.pdf
Google Scholar
Ferziger, J.H. and Peric, M. Computational methods for fluid dynamics, Springer-Verlag, New York, 2000.Google Scholar
ANSYS Canada Ltd. Fluent 19 documentation, 283 Northfield Drive E, Unit 21 Waterloo, ON, N2J 4G8, 2018.Google Scholar
Tallman, J.A., Haldeman, C.W., Dunn, M.G., Tolpadi, A.K. and Bergholz, R.F. Heat transfer measurements and predictions for a modern, high-pressure, transonic turbine, including end-walls, Trans ASME J Turbomach, 131/021001-1, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiesch, G. Modeling Engine Spray and Combustion Processes, Springer, New York, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morsi, S.A. and Alexander, A.J. An investigation of particle trajectories in two-phase flow systems, J Fluid Mech, 1972, 55, (2), pp 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider, A. and Levenspiel, O. Drag coefficient and terminal velocity of spherical and non-spherical particles, Powder Technol, 1989, 58, pp 63–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taslim, M.E., Khanicheh, A. and Spring, S. A numerical study of sand separation applicable to engine inlet particle separator systems, J Amer Helicop Soc, 2009, 54, pp 042001-1-10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duffy, R.J. et al. Integral engine inlet particle separator, Des Guide, 1975, II, USAAMRDL-TR-75-31B.Google Scholar
Wakeman, T. and Tabakoff, W. Measured particle rebound characteristics useful for erosion prediction, Paper 82-GT-170, ASME Gas Turbine Conference, London, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taslim, M.E. and Spring, S. A numerical study of sand particle distribution, density, and shape effects on the scavenge efficiency of engine inlet particle separator systems, Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 2010, 55, pp 022006-1-9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R. Two-equation Eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J, 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leithead, S.G., Allan, W.D.E., Zhao, L. and Yang, Q. Enhanced experimental testing of new erosion-resistant compressor blade coatings, J Eng Gas Turb Power, 2016, 138, 112603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finnie, I. Some reflections on the past and future of erosion, Wear 186–187, pp l–10, 1995.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oka, Y.T. and Yoshida, T. Practical estimation of erosion damage caused by solid particle impact, part 2: Mechanical properties of materials directly associated with erosion damage, Wear, 2005, pp 102–109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLaury, B.S. et al. Modeling erosion in chokes, Proceeding of ASME Fluids Eng. Summer Meeting, San Diego, California, 1996.Google Scholar